Can anyone justify NOT having the Wall?

FDR liked Stalin too much for that ever to have been realistic. He thought he was a great guy. When reports began to come in about some of the things Stalin did, FDR's reaction was to refuse to believe it. He died without ever knowing the full extent of it. Somewhat like young liberals today.

 

That was the question. There were certain segments of the population this would have been true for, but what of the bulk of them? For example, non-Jewish Poles? The Soviets abused the hell out of them during the war, and just kept it going after. The poor Poles. Has anyone ever had worse neighbors?

 

FDR had a much better excuse than young liberals have today. In the 1930s, Stalin's worst activities weren't commonly known. Furthermore, he was right about Hitler when the rest of the West was pacifying him. Stalin gets a bad rap for the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact that carved up Poland, but it's not entirely fair. The Soviet Union did that mostly to delay an inevitable that they had largely resisted. Before any of that, Britain and France were carving up Czechoslovakia for Hitler and shutting Stalin and obviously the Czechs out of the process because they were too anti-Hitler. Furthermore, the brutality and inherent failings of communism were very much open questions. So I don't fault FDR for being less hostile to Stalin than was ideal.

In 2018, we have no excuse. The people who fetishize communism (like the New York Times has) are no better than those who fetishize Nazism. They're defending something they know to be evil and deadly.

We focus a lot on the Polish Jews and for good reason. They bore the brunt of the Nazis' most horrific and most infamous crimes against humanity. However, the plan was the ethic cleansing and full incorporation of Poland into the German Reich. That meant the expulsion and enslavement of ethnic Poles and resettlement of the area by ethnic Germans. Obviously they didn't completely finish the job, but they made a lot of "progress," and massive numbers of Poles died as a result, while massive numbers of Germans resettled the area. The bottom line is that had Germany won the war, the overwhelming majority of Poles would have eventually met a similar fate as the Jews. They would have been used as slave laborers, and once the Soviet Union was defeated, they would have been killed by force or starved death.

Were the Communists terrible to the Poles? Absolutely, but they didn't plot their complete destruction like the Nazis did. The Nazis were really bad hombres or really "böse Männer."

 

Interesting how the liberal left doesn't make any claims about how Japan is racist for not opening the borders to anybody who wants to come.

 

Ironically enough, the George Soros funded caravan from Honduras may be the best pro-Wall propaganda ever

 

George Soros must be wealthier than God with how much he funds.

As an aside, the organizer of this march of 1K individuals expects no more than 100 to reach the US. The majority simply wanted to get into Mexico and it's safer to deal with the "Federales" in a large group.

 

Let's call out the National Guard to stop those darn illegal immigrants who's numbers have dropped to an 18 year low. Bonus points for the political stunt though. Where's the fiscal hawks, or those who claim to be?

 

In fiscal terms, it’s less costly to build a wall.

 

That's debatable. There have been a myriad of biased studies that have landed on both sides of the issue. iatragenic and I previously threw up several studies then proceeded to try to debunk each others input. Not really interested in rehashing those old arguments.

You can usually determine their bias by looking at their original assumptions, what was included/excluded.

 

Wall is cheaper than paying for a standing army protecting the border.

 

On that we agree. Of course the assumption that either is economically sensible is debatable. Given the trend (18yr low) one might surmise that status quo is acceptable.

 

The net migration is a negative. Won't the wall just keep people here that want to leave?

 

Looking at Joe Fan's picture of the caravan, there's a guy in a wheelchair making the journey. That takes real balls. We should probably let him in (and the guy who agreed to push him the length of Mexico).

 

I honestly don't remember seeing any economic arguments from you, but I have posted data from numerous studies, including the Gang of 8 proposal to which you referred at one time and seem to support, that clearly show building a wall is a huge cost savings.

I have seen reports that we need to add 15-20 million immigrants by 2030 to help fund the wealth transfer payments to an aging population. Allowing (virtually begging) foreigners to cross illegally that become charges of the state has nothing to do with furthering the interests of the USA or solving that problem. It is solely directed at increasing the voting base of the Democrats, which can be easily argued weakens the country economically, militarily, and, yes, even morally depending on your perspective.

The only arguments I hear are:

1) "we need to help everyone less well off than we are", but you never consider the cost of that help and its negative effects on our citizens.
2) "We are all a nation of immigrants", but you ignore the fact that we are, except for the 11 million here illegally, a nation built with legal immigrants. Libs also ignore the many times in our history when immigration was intentionally and severely limited.

We can throw in the argument you make concerning the possibility of letting a cowardly Muslim terrorist into the country illegally by stating, "the odds of you becoming a victim of a terrorist attack is extremely small", which is true. However, the odds of someone becoming the victim is not so small. So much for the sympathy toward others argument.

Now Democrats are actually working against the enforcement of the immigration laws of the United States. First, they employ the typical liberal tactic of using a misnomer to try to make something bad sound good (or the reverse). In this case Democrats employ the term "sanctuary city" to describe a political subdivision run by Democrats that harbors lawbreakers. Next, liberal politicians warn illegals of impending ICE raids. Simultaneously, they employ liberal judges in the 9th circuit to misinterpret unambiguous language in the law as a mechanism to further their political interests. Recently, the SCOTUS did everything to demean the 9th circuit short of calling them fu--cking dumbasses.

 

I don't have a problem with using logic and reason to secure our borders. A wall is not logical.

If we penalize the people paying undocumented workers the demand for their services will go away and they will go home and will only increase the net migration. We don't want to do that. I'm unclear as to why. Hell, consider it a multi faceted problem and that one of the avenues of addressing it.

 

That is a legitimate avenue of addressing the problem, Bubba. It cannot be the only one, though.

 

The Wall is primarily to protect us from our own politicians.

 

The wall is not illogical. Walls/barriers are used throughout the world and are very effective. You will encounter many everyday, from highway dividers to locked doors.

There are already penalties against employers that hire illegals, and they can be severe. At that point in time, however, you are trying to break the thermometer because the room is hot. Stop them at the border. Placing an improperly enforced government function upon businesses yet again is an abdication of government responsibility. They either cannot, or in the case of Democrats will not, protect the border properly. Then the government requires businesses to do the government's job, but they can't enforce rules against businesses properly. What's next? How about ineffectively enforced rules against apartment complexes that rent to illegals?

Until the government does its job at the border, this problem is not going away.

 

54% of French people support "the departure of a large number of migrants".

 

The poor in this country, whether they are are illegal or a legal citizen, consume more than they pay in taxes. There's absolutely no way that illegal immigrants aren't costing this country a lot of money.

 

That's very well put, JF.

 

And this should be a more often repeated aspect of the anti-immigration mantra. 7 Billion people on the planet. If given the choice, about 3 billion of them would head to the US in a heart beat. If we adopt the liberal stance on immigration, that is a green light to everyone, everywhere to flood the border by hook or by crook.

 

I feel sorry for the Guard folks that are doing this job. It's a political stunt and despite the supposed protection USERRA provides regarding their civilian employment, they get hosed when this happens. Even patriotic employers are hard pressed to promote soldiers to positions of importance when there is a constant cloud of them getting "deployed".

Not to mention that when these folks are mobilized under STATE orders (ie, the governor versus POTUS), they aren't covered by Tricare and they don't get the usual housing allowance and such.

 

Weak sauce.
"First offenders can be fined $250-$2,000 per illegal employee. For a second offense, the fine is $2,000-$5,000 per illegal employee. Three or more offenses can cost an employer $3000-$10,000 per illegal employee. A pattern of knowingly employing illegal immigrants can mean extra fines and up to six months in jail for an employer."

I didn't search hard, but I can't even find a list of employers that have been fined. My sense is that most often they get warning after warning. While there may be laws against it, even our best anti-immigration advocate in years is not willing to lower the boom on these crappy companies that are illegally hiring workers.

 

On subsequent days our POTUS tweeted this is a crisis then touted that illegal migration was at a 46yr low. Manufactured controversy?

 

Come on man, those are two different days!

 

You feel sorry for the Guard having to guard?

I have a friend who just got back from a Costa Rica surf trip. His spanish is decent and he said there was a infomercial on local TV about how to gain entry into the US using a refugee claim. He says it was playing constantly. Likely planned and produced with Soros funding. As were the "community organizers" who brought us the Honduran 'caravan.' Maybe "political stunts" are in the eye of the beholder?

In any event, the point is that there are many more on the way. Trump sees what is happening and has responded by opening his toolbox to use whatever he has to put an end to this, or at least slow it. What other president, going back to Kenedy, can you say that about?